In this case, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, based on his residence. Seven of the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which caused the plaintiff to move for a transfer of venue to Louisiana. The court found that Louisiana had a sufficient connection to the claimed exposure: “The Western District of Louisiana is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to …
Continue ReadingCategory: Federal Officer Jurisdiction
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Denied as Complaint Did Not Put Defendants on Notice of Federal Claims
In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleged exposure to various products while working at various worksites as a machinist, pipefitter, and electrician during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Several defendants removed the case based on the federal officer removal statute 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) alleging that the federal court had jurisdiction because there is a “government contractor defense” to the claims. The plaintiff moved to remand arguing that the removal was untimely as the defendants were initially put on notice of the federal claims from …
Continue ReadingDefendants Unsuccessful in Removal Effort Based on Diversity
In this New Jersey case, two defendants moved for summary judgment, motions for which were not opposed by the plaintiff. Following the dismissal of the two defendants, those remaining removed the case under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) and 1446(b)(3) based on diversity of citizenship. Under these sections, if a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses non-diverse parties — creating diversity of citizenship for the remaining parties — the case can be removed to federal court. In response to the plaintiff’s motion to remand, the remaining defendants argued that the …
Continue ReadingCourt Rules on Personal Jurisdiction Issues Involving Dana Corporation
In this Rhode Island case, the court granted the plaintiff limited discovery to determine whether certain Dana companies were subject to jurisdiction in Rhode Island: “This Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate as to any ‘substantial’ or ‘continuous and systematic’ business contacts Dana Corporation may have had with Rhode Island. However, no additional discovery is necessary regarding Dana Holding or Dana Companies.”
Continue ReadingDistrict Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Case Against Airplane Manufacturer
In this federal court case, the plaintiffs allege that the decedent was exposed to asbestos while working as a civilian flight mechanic at the Belle Chasse Air Force Base from the early 1950s through 1979. The Boeing Company removed the case to federal court. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case since defendants do not meet the removal requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1442 (a)(1). In the …
Continue ReadingFederal Court Exercises Supplemental Jurisdiction in Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Remand
In this federal court case, the plaintiffs sought to remand the case back to state court after settling with federal defendants GE and CBS Corporation, who originally removed the case pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C 1442(a)(1). The plaintiffs sought removal, asking the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against John Crane. The plaintiffs also reasserted their challenges to the court’s original jurisdiction, but since those issues had already been addressed, only the new argument was …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff Granted Remand of Shipyard’s Removal to Federal Court
In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos while he was an employee of Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (previously known as Avondale shipyards) in various positions from 1948 through 1996. The defendants removed the case, claiming the federal court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442. The defendants specifically claimed that federal inspectors from military agencies maintained a constant presence at the shipyard during the construction of vessels for the Navy and Coast Guard …
Continue ReadingFederal Court Remands Two Cases with Nexus to Naval Asbestos Exposure to State Court
In both of the following cases, the federal court remanded the actions back to state court. In the first action, the plaintiffs, the adult children of the decedent, alleged their father was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy as a boiler technician from 1960 to 1988. Several defendants moved to remove the case to federal court at the same time that the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, seeking to disclaim any claim regarding design-defect or strict-liability where defendants’ actions were compelled by, …
Continue ReadingSouthern District of Illinois Denies Motion to Remand Alleged Aircraft Engine Asbestos Exposure Based on Federal Contractor Defense
After the plaintiff commenced an action alleging asbestos exposure in connection with Air Force aircraft engines, the defendants removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), which permits removal “by federal officers or any persons acting under a federal officer for any act under color of such office where such person asserts a colorable defense.” The plaintiff moved to remand the case, claiming the defendants could not establish a colorable defense in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Boyle, which …
Continue ReadingFederal Court Refuses to Remand State Law Asbestos Case Where Discovery Was Completed and Dispositive Motions Decided
In this case, the plaintiff commenced an action in Maryland state court and alleged the decedent’s exposure to asbestos while working at a Coast Guard yard, as a floor tile salesman, and in connection with residential work. The case was originally removed to federal court under federal question jurisdiction, based on the claimed exposure at the Coast Guard yard. After the case proceeded through discovery, all the defendants associated with the claimed shipyard exposure were either dismissed or settled, leaving Union Carbide as the remaining …
Continue Reading